The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Addanc]

I thought it was a rather good critique of the CO2 theory, highlighting some large holes in it. An alternative theory was presented which appeared to be a lot more substantial; one of the scientists was able to take money off the bookies ffs with a weather prediction model based on sun-spot activity (oh a model that might actually work!). I don't recall reading about a CO2 advocate having a model that fitted the facts.

Unfortunately there is a lot of politics in research; when there are large pots of money at stake it might be all to tempting to seek only those facts that back the theory that you seek to prove while conveniently discarding the facts that do not. There is a lot more money to be made out of CO2 global warning than there is out of temperature change due to sun spot activity (i.e. something natural, something you cannot control).

[DimPrawn]

I thought it was a rather good critique of the CO2 theory, highlighting some large holes in it. An alternative theory was presented which appeared to be a lot more substantial; one of the scientists was able to take money off the bookies ffs with a weather prediction model based on sun-spot activity (oh a model that might actually work!). I don't recall reading about a CO2 advocate having a model that fitted the facts.

Unfortunately there is a lot of politics in research; when there are large pots of money at stake it might be all to tempting to seek only those facts that back the theory that you seek to prove while conveniently discarding the facts that do not. There is a lot more money to be made out of CO2 global warning than there is out of temperature change due to sun spot activity (i.e. something natural, something you cannot control).

100% spot on.

Global Warming research to prove it is man made pulls research money from Green lobbies and governments keen on punitive tax on energy companies and individuals.

Global Warming research to prove it is not man made pulls research money from oil/energy companies keen to avoid punitive tax on energy companies.


Global Warming research on solar activity, who's got a vested interest in that?

[Buffoon]

The theory put forward was also consistent with the global dimming phenomenon that has been observed.

I became very dubious of the whole thing once B’Liar and el Gordo started to jump on the band wagon as an excuse to raise taxes.

[Magnus]

So who made this documentary? Someone by the name of Martin Durkin, who made a series of programmes in 1997 for Channel 4 called Against Nature, about which the ITC (Independent Television Commission) said

Comparison of the unedited and edited interview transcripts confirmed that the editing of the interviews with these four contributors had indeed distorted or misrepresented their known views. It was also found that the production company had misled them, when it originally sought their involvement, as to the format, subject matter and purpose of the programmes.

and Channel 4 was forced to issue an apology on air.. Link: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archi...int_id=40.html

and another documentary by Martin Durkin in 1997 that made the claim that silicone breast implants weren't harmful, and even reduced the risk of breast cancer:

To help him make the programme, Durkin hired Najma Kazi, a highly respected TV researcher and producer who was previously a research biochemist. After two weeks she walked out.

and

Women claiming that their operations had caused severe health problems were dismissed as cranks, malingerers and compensation-chasers.

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2007/3/6/8814/25388

Seems like an objective, trustworthy chap doesn't he?

[Back In Business]

Seems like an objective, trustworthy chap doesn't he?

Compared to Al Gore

[VectraMan]

I watched this last night, and it was pretty convincing. Far more convincing than anything I've seen from the pro camp.

But it all comes down to blind faith, as few if any of us have the means or the inclination to go look at the evidence and draw our own conclusions. All those scientists could have been actors, and most people would still have been sold.

[Magnus]

Compared to Al Gore

Gore could have gone into some business or consultancy and raked in millions, like ex-pols in the US usually do. Instead he decided to devote himself to tackling what he (and most rational people) thinks is the gravest problem facing mankind right now.

He deserves a Nobel peace prize. He deserves to be drafted into the US presidency. And before anyone says that's exactly his aim, that he's just cynically trying to push the global warming/climate change wheelbarrow into the US presidency, everyone who hated Gore described him as a stodgy, clumsy campaigner and person in general (which he may well be). Given this image of Gore try to imagine what sort of "campaign" he would be running to regain his popularity: there's no way he would be able to pull off an exercise such as being the driving force getting the world's population to do something about global warming just to get back into politics. It's clearly a heartfelt passion and something he believes needs doing.

Gore-haters, you can't have it both ways. Which is it? Is Gore a stodgy, awkward clod who just makes himself look like a goof when he tries promoting himself, or cynically brilliant populist/propagandist manipulating the world's biggest problem for his own gain?

[Back In Business]

It's clearly a heartfelt passion and something he believes needs doing.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257958,00.html . . . clearly.

I don't hate Gore - I would have voted for him given the alternative available. He just wasn't a very good choice IMO.

[Buffoon]

Gore could have gone into some business or consultancy and raked in millions, like ex-pols in the US usually do. Instead he decided to devote himself to tackling what he (and most rational people) thinks is the gravest problem facing mankind right now.

He deserves a Nobel peace prize. He deserves to be drafted into the US presidency. And before anyone says that's exactly his aim, that he's just cynically trying to push the global warming/climate change wheelbarrow into the US presidency, everyone who hated Gore described him as a stodgy, clumsy campaigner and person in general (which he may well be). Given this image of Gore try to imagine what sort of "campaign" he would be running to regain his popularity: there's no way he would be able to pull off an exercise such as being the driving force getting the world's population to do something about global warming just to get back into politics. It's clearly a heartfelt passion and something he believes needs doing.

Gore-haters, you can't have it both ways. Which is it? Is Gore a stodgy, awkward clod who just makes himself look like a goof when he tries promoting himself, or cynically brilliant populist/propagandist manipulating the world's biggest problem for his own gain?

And ...
Tony Blair is the best PM this country ever had.
Gordon Brown will be even better.

Nurse - I think it's time for my medication. I'm hearing voices in my head again.

[HairyArsedBloke]

Magnus,

you're kinda new around here. You have a naïve charm that I really love. Don’t let all these horrid people upset up. Sensitive people like us need to stick together. Maybe we could meet up in real life?